>I also heard the wing rigger is not as stable, apparently it bends a little
>( lateraly - up and down) wich the conventional rigger doesn't move at all.
>But teh energy is better distributed to the boat with a wing rigger.
That's an interesting suggestion, often aired, but I hope you don't mind
if I say that I think it has absolutely no basis in fact.
The stroke energy can only be 'lost' in the rigger/boat/stretcher system
if there is some part of the intervening structure between pin & centre
of effort on the stretcher which flexes significantly, so as to absorb
measurable proportion of the work applied at the pin.
The point of attachment of the tension stay of a conventional rigger is
very close to the stretcher mounts, & all boats are extremely rigid over
such short distances. The boat is also effectively incompressible at
the main shoulders/knees. So the stroke forces go, without any loss,
directly along the tension stay and into the stretcher.
Indeed, I'd go further towards killing that particular fable by saying
that even with a forward-mounted wing, which is mounted some
1.2-metre/4ft ahead of the stretcher, there will be no material energy
losses within the intervening length of shell.
What can change that situation is if the rigger-to-stretcher connection
is capable of rotation (heels rotate downwards, or pin rotates forward)
under the stroke loads. Some integral wing rigger/stretcher setups show
flexibility in the sax/gunwales mounting area under the unsupported
torsional loads from rigger & stretcher, permitting some stretcher
rotation. And many tubular wing designs lack torsional stiffness in
comparison with a well-designed 2-stay conventionally-mounted rigger,
(permitting pin rotation & height variation unless much larger diameter
tubes are used).
>it does not seem to be cathing on. Some companies like hudson only make
>wing rigger. It would be interesting to see if he still had conventional
>rigger if most of its buyers would still buy wing rigger.
>Also teh wing rigger does leave more space and a lower seat because of teh
If the main shoulder/rib of the shell is built too narrow to allow the
seat to pass through as low as might be needed, that is a fault in the
shell, not an advantage of the wing rigger ;^)
And then there is the somewhat inconvenient size of the demounted wing
PS I'm always rather amused when a certain manufacturer actively
denigrates our AeRoWing riggers by claiming that they will somehow
damage his buttercup-yellow shells.
This an unfounded slur on our fine product. And the fact that they use
it to try to bully buyers of their shells out of fitting AeRoWing
riggers displays structural engineering ignorance *and* admits how much
stiffer our riggers are than their own more expensive, & fragile,
Carl Douglas Racing Shells -
Fine Small-Boats/AeRoWing low-drag Riggers/Advanced Accessories
Write: The Boathouse, Timsway, Chertsey Lane, Staines TW18 3JZ, UK
URLs: www.carldouglas.co.uk (boats) & www.aerowing.co.uk (riggers)